If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Venture to say that I think ... my kernels - particularly i7 [for Sandy and Ivy Bridge] and Brazos [for AMD Athlon II from up] line will be faster, and far more responsive - especially under a load of 100% for each thread / core processor - than Steven kernels. Of course, it must be emphasized that Steven kernels are really good - btw I in recent years do not use BFS and BFQ.

Venture to say that I think ... my kernels - particularly i7 [for Sandy and Ivy Bridge] and Brazos [for AMD Athlon II from up] line will be faster, and far more responsive - especially under a load of 100% for each thread / core processor - than Steven kernels. Of course, it must be emphasized that Steven kernels are really good - btw I in recent years do not use BFS and BFQ.

Hi, "my" in the sense - my configuration and compilatiion + a few modifications sources [made to build was possible] and e.g patch to removal of info: fast tsc failed. So ... for example, running a version of Brazos:

Please mesure LATENCY when benchmarking Liquorix!

Hi,

All these benchmarks show is that there are no major performance regressions in Liquorix.

This kernel is LATENCY optimized. It is supposed to have better LATENCY than other kernels. Michael, can you please stop doing only throughput oriented benchmarks for desktop kernels and add some latency benchmarks?

This is very embarrassing. And it's the 2nd time Phoronix screws up like this and puts benchmarks that have little relevance. Don't get me wrong. I love Phoronix and I read it almost daily, but I'd like to see it get better and to stop doing embarrasing things like this article.